Mapping of care and guidance on Aortic Aneurysm to support educational technology for Elderly Patients– Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brazilian project - Scope Review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology Protocol: I. Study Type: This is a scoping review structured according to the methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and reported following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). II. Review Question: The review question was developed using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy: Population (P): elderly patients with aortic aneurysm Concept (C): health literacy guidelines and recommendations, with potential to inform the development of educational technology Context (C): hospital settings (specifically cardiology wards) Therefore, this review seeks to answer the following question: “What health literacy guidelines and recommendations for elderly patients with aortic aneurysm are available in the literature, to support the development of educational technology in hospital settings?” III. Eligibility Criteria: All studies with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed approaches, available in open access, published, with participants aged 60 and over, and published from 2020 onwards will be included. Studies that address clinical practices, care protocols, strategies, guidelines, or specific recommendations for the management of patients with aortic aneurysm in hospital settings will be considered. The selection will be restricted to studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Editorials, opinion articles, letters to the editor, and duplicate publications will be excluded.. IV. Information Source and Search Strategy: To identify relevant studies, searches will be conducted in the following electronic databases: BVS, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase. In addition, a grey literature search will be performed using BDTD (Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), including theses and dissertations. Primary studies will be included, as well as guidelines, protocols, and official documents from the Ministry of Health (MS), the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC), and the Brazilian Society of Cardiovascular Surgery (SBCCV). The search will be conducted in the current month of July; however, a preliminary search was carried out in April for an initial exploration to gain a better understanding of the topic and to check if similar research already exists. The search strategy will include descriptors from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS), combined with alternative terms using the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”. V. Study Selection Process: The studies will be made available in electronic RIS (Research Information Systems) file format, imported into Rayyan to remove duplicates and then for screening and selection of documents for the review study, reducing errors and/or biases. The screening and selection process will be conducted by two independent and blinded reviewers, in two distinct phases. In phase 1, the titles and abstracts will be read. In phase 2, the selected studies will be read in full, assessing their ability to address the guiding research question, in order to compose the final sample for the scoping review. In cases of disagreement between the reviewers, a third reviewer will be consulted. The final sample of studies selected for review will be imported into EndNote for reference management and bibliographic formatting. Before the screening and data extraction stages, a meeting will be held with the reviewers to present the protocol, clarify the eligibility criteria and standardize the data extraction form, aiming to ensure consistency and minimize discrepancies. VI. Data Extraction Process for Selected Studies Data extraction from the selected studies will be conducted through a structured form to facilitate evidence synthesis, using an Excel spreadsheet adapted for this study based on the form recommended by JBI. The characteristics to be extracted include: Author(s), Article title, Year (publication), Country of origin, Objective of the article, Type of study, Categories, Main results found, Conclusion, Limitation, Relevant observations, Reference citation (Vancouver), Reason for the decision (include/exclude and justification). Methodological assessment of the studies will not be required, as this is a scoping review, which aims to map the available evidence rather than identify the best available evidence to answer a specific question. VII. Data Synthesis: At the end of the process, a cross-check of the extracted study information will be performed, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The data will then be organized into tables and charts, including a qualitative (narrative) synthesis of the specific care/guidance for elderly patients with aneurysm settings as proposed in each study. All scientific works used will be properly cited and referenced in accordance with copyright regulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".